Position vs. Change

Arguing for a position and aruging a change is a lot alike, but also are a lot different. When you argue a position, your goal is to try and convince the reader your point of view. When you argue a change, you first of all have to convince the reader of your point of view,you then have to convince them to go ahead and actually go out and act somehow upon it. Jefferson argues a change because he first of all, lists why he he believes the king treats people. Then he states ways you can go and overthrow him from his throne. Clark argues a position because she just gives real life examples on how bad life is without Health Insurance. She doesn't go on and list things you can do which will change the quality of life without health insurance. As you can see they are kinda alike because they use their own experiences, but one goes on even more which make them different.

Position vs. Change

Writing for a position argument and writing an argument for change have some similarities and differences. Both of the arguments are trying to persuade an audience, but the actions from the audience is different. Writing for a position is when all the author is asking for the audience to agree with them. For example, in Ted Koppel's, "Take My Privacy, Please!", he is trying to show his audience that we do not have as much privacy as we should and that it will only get worse. He makes us feel almost afraid of what is going on. He persuades us to believe that our privacy has been taken away from us. Whereas, writing an argument for change is asking the audience to do something about the problem. For example, in Thomas Jefferson's, "The Declaration of Independence", he shows the problems and ways to fix them. He shows the severity of the problem and that life is intolerable under the king. He shows complaints, and this proves that this problem needs to be changed.

Therefore, in writing for a position, the audience is basically persuaded to take that specific position on the issue. So, writing an argument for change, is basically the next step of this. The author persuades the audience to see their position, but to also take action to their solutions for this problem.

Change vs. Position

Arguing for a change and arguing a position are a lot alike. The only real difference is what you are arguing about. Arguing for a change involves convincing readers to do something, or change a particular behavior. On the other hand, arguing a position is convincing the readers to beleive something, or change their viewpoint on a certain subject. In the "Declaration of Independence," Jefferson talks about freeing the country from Britain. It is such a broad topic, which is quite unlike the topic of "Life Without Health Insurance." In Clarks essay, she is talking about the personal problems many people without health insurance face. In Jeffersons essay, he includes many examples to support his opinion, just like Clark does to support her point.

Arguing for a Change

I think arguing for a change and arguing for a position are a lot alike. In both of them you are arguing for something you believe in. In arguing for a position you are wanting people to believe you and why you think that way. In arguing for a change you are explaining to the people why a change needs to occur and what they can do to help the change. Jefferson has to convince the people of a change so he lists complaints about the King and tells how badly the King treats his people. In Hillary vs. Grand Theft Auto, Johnson is arguing a poistion against Hillary. He thinkings video games are helping the kid's cognitive development and hand-eye coordination. He stats some facts like SAT scores and some studies but is mainly saying that kids are learning from video games.